Author Topic: Is Richard Dawkins still evolving?  (Read 11017 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sam Adams

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 679
  • Reputation: +40/-19
Re: Is Richard Dawkins still evolving?
« Reply #25 on: February 23, 2009, 04:00:08 PM »
So, the Bible is only a scientific text in ONE area, by your assertions, right?


I never asserted any  such thing. We were talking about origins.

Offline SSG Snuggle Bunny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23048
  • Reputation: +2232/-269
  • Voted Rookie-of-the-Year, 3 years running
Re: Is Richard Dawkins still evolving?
« Reply #26 on: February 24, 2009, 03:30:12 AM »
Can you dispute the fact that there are objectively discernible actions that lead to the thriving of humanity (or to its ruin)?  If not, then there are objective morals.
Why is a thriving humanity considered a "good" thing?

If there were no thriving humanity would that be "bad"?

How would you know?

How do you know if what you do today is "good" when you have no way of knowing its impact beyond 1 or 2 generations?

In WW2 a British bomber squadron strayed off course due to malfunctioning navigational equipment and mistakenly dropped its bombs intended for a factory on to the Berlin suburbs. Hitler took it as a sign that the allies were deliberately attacking German civilians and as he had openly promised Berlin wuld be spared from the war he felt the episode made a fool of him. Heretofore the Luftwaffe had been making a concentrated effort to destroy British radar installations during the Battle of Britain; but none to certain about the usefulness of these installations Hiter ordered the assets used to attack the radar installations to instead target the civilian population of London in retaliation. Had the attacks on the radar installation persisted another 2 weeks Britiain--being outnumbered in the air 3 to 1--would not have had the ability to vector its limited assets to contend with the German onslaught and the war could have taken on a very different outcome.

So which was the "moral good": the poorly maintained navigational equipment? The righteous indignation at the death of civilians?

Or was it all just blind chance?

Or an act of Providence?

How about: America once had slavery. America is a strong and powerful nation. Was slavery a good thing if it was once part of America and now America is strong and powerful?
According to the Bible, "know" means "yes."